P L D 1964 W (PLP)
PIR BAKHSH alias PIRAN DITTA — ‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH DIWAYA‑ — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1964 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue, |
| Parties | PIR BAKHSH alias PIRAN DITTA — ‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH DIWAYA‑ — Respondent |
| Primary Law | ORDER |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1964 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: ORDER as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1964 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1964 W (PLP) (PIR BAKHSH alias PIRAN DITTA — ‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH DIWAYA‑ — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asghar Ali Bhatti for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Appeal
‑Time‑barred ‑ Delay not condoned under S. 5, Limitation Act, 1908, provision being not applicable in Bahawal pur State. (b) Mutation‑
Entries made in Revenue Record need not be changed on allegations of fraud‑Aggrieved party may seek remedy in civil Court. Azizullah v. Ghulaman P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 458 ref. This is an application for a review of my order dated 6‑9‑1963 fn a mutation case. I need not go into the merits of this case as the application can be decided on the short ground whether a review is tenable under the provisions of section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, The petitioners' contention is that there is an error apparent on the face of the record for the following reason. One of the grounds for accepting the revision was that entries in the revenue records, namely the khasra girdawari, sustained the transaction of sale which was under contest. It is urged that this is not correct factually as entries in the khasragirdawari continued in favour of the petitioner being in cultivating possession of the exchanged land. Hence this application. There are, however, two other points for consideration. First of these is that the appeal which was lodged with the Collec tor was time‑barred and there is no provision in the Land Revenue Act as applicable to the old Bahawalpur State area which allows for extension of time under section 5 of the Limitation Act, for the purpose of admitting an appeal. An amendment was carried out in the Punjab Land Revenue Act in 1955 but this was note adopted by Bahawalpur State. The appeal was thus clearly time barred and the Collector rightly rejected it. And the learned Additional Commissioner was not competent under the law to extend the period of limitation. The second point for consideration is the allegation of fraud which has been leveled in respect of the transaction. It has been the consistent view of Financial Commissioners and Members of the Board of Revenue that when parties have appeared before the Revenue Officer and admitted the transaction so that the entries in the revenue records are made accordingly these should not c ordinarily be altered on the ground that a fraud had been practiced by one of the parties. 1n this connection reference is invited to the well‑known ruling of Allen Mitchell F. C. in Aziz ullah v. Ghulaman (P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 458). The petitioner has another remedy open to him namely to have recourse to the civil Courts where the question of fraud can be gone into and adjudicated upon. For the reasons given above I would decline to accept this petition and maintain the order already passed. K. M. A. Petition rejected.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Mutation‑
Entries made in Revenue Record need not be changed on allegations of fraud‑Aggrieved party may seek remedy in civil Court. Azizullah v. Ghulaman P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 458 ref. Asghar Ali Bhatti for Petitioner. This is an application for a review of my order dated 6‑9‑1963 fn a mutation case. I need not go into the merits of this case as the application can be decided on the short ground whether a review is tenable under the provisions of section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, The petitioners' contention is that there is an error apparent on the face of the record for the following reason. One of the grounds for accepting the revision was that entries in the revenue records, namely the khasra girdawari, sustained the transaction of sale which was under contest. It is urged that this is not correct factually as entries in the khasragirdawari continued in favour of the petitioner being in cultivating possession of the exchanged land. Hence this application. There are, however, two other points for consideration. First of these is that the appeal which was lodged with the Collec tor was time‑barred and there is no provision in the Land Revenue Act as applicable to the old Bahawalpur State area which allows for extension of time under section 5 of the Limitation Act, for the purpose of admitting an appeal. An amendment was carried out in the Punjab Land Revenue Act in 1955 but this was note adopted by Bahawalpur State. The appeal was thus clearly time barred and the Collector rightly rejected it. And the learned Additional Commissioner was not competent under the law to extend the period of limitation. The second point for consideration is the allegation of fraud which has been leveled in respect of the transaction. It has been the consistent view of Financial Commissioners and Members of the Board of Revenue that when parties have appeared before the Revenue Officer and admitted the transaction so that the entries in the revenue records are made accordingly these should not c ordinarily be altered on the ground that a fraud had been practiced by one of the parties. 1n this connection reference is invited to the well‑known ruling of Allen Mitchell F. C. in Aziz ullah v. Ghulaman (P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 458). The petitioner has another remedy open to him namely to have recourse to the civil Courts where the question of fraud can be gone into and adjudicated upon. For the reasons given above I would decline to accept this petition and maintain the order already passed. K. M. A. Petition rejected.